Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    624

    Should National Popular vote determine Electoral College?

    States consider plan that would force Electoral College to choose according to popular vote

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/7 ... 08.article

    February 10, 2008
    FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- If John R. Koza gets his way, American voters will never again have to wonder about the workings of the Electoral College and why it decides who sits in the White House.

    Koza is behind a push to have states circumvent the odd political math of the Electoral College and ensure that the presidency always goes to the winner of the popular vote.

    Basically, states would promise to award their electoral votes to the candidate with the most support nationwide, regardless of who carries each particular state.

    ''We're just coming along and saying, 'Why not add up the votes of all 50 states and award the electoral votes to the 50-state winner?''' said Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc. ''I think that the candidate who gets the most votes should win the office.''

    The proposal is aimed at preventing a repeat of the 2000 election, when Al Gore got the most votes nationwide but George W. Bush put together enough victories in key states to win a majority in the Electoral College and capture the White House.

    So far, Maryland and New Jersey have signed up for the plan. Legislation that would include Illinois is on the governor's desk. But dozens more states would have to join before the plan could take effect.

    The idea is a long shot. But it appears to be easier than the approach tried previously -- amending the Constitution, which takes approval by Congress and then ratification by 38 states.

    The Electoral College was set up to make the final decision on who becomes president. Each state has a certain number of votes in the college based on the size of its congressional delegation.

    Often, all of a state's electoral votes are given to whomever wins that state's popular vote. For instance, even someone who wins New York by a single percentage point, 51-49, would get all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

    This creates some problems.

    One is that candidates can ignore voters in states that aren't competitive. If the Democrat is clearly going to win a state, the Republican has no reason to court its minority of GOP voters there and instead will focus on other states.

    Another problem is the possibility of a result like that in 2000, where one candidate gets more votes overall but the other candidate gets narrow victories in just the right states to eke out a majority in the Electoral College.

    National Popular Vote says its plan would change all that.

    ''What's important to the country is that it would make presidential campaigns a 50-state exercise,'' said Koza, a Stanford University computer science professor.

    Here's how it would work:

    States forge an agreement to change the way they allocate general election votes. The agreement would take effect once it's been approved by states with a majority in the Electoral College, or 270 votes.

    At that point, the states would begin awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each state.

    If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state -- basically the same system used now.

    There are critics. The downside, they argue, is that a close presidential election would require recounts not just in one or two key states, but throughout the entire country.

    They also say it would further reduce the influence of small states as politicians focus on such places as voter-rich California, New York and Texas.

    ''Any way you look at it, I think smaller populations have a greater voice under the current system than they would under a national popular vote system,'' said North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, a Republican who voted against joining his state in National Popular Vote's agreement.

    Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has not decided whether to sign his state's legislation to join the plan, his office said. When he was in Congress, Blagojevich co-sponsored a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College in 2000.

    Legislation endorsing the National Popular Vote plan was passed in California and Hawaii but vetoed by their governors. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said it would run ''counter to the tradition of our great nation, which honors states' rights and the unique pride and identity of each state.''

    Koza believes the agreement proposal would standardize the way states award their electoral votes, give every voter equal influence and keep candidates from ignoring some states in favor of battleground states like Ohio and Florida.

    He noted that neither presidential candidate visited Illinois in 2004, even though it has a population of about 12.8 million.

    ''The Republicans wrote it off and the Democrats took it for granted,'' Koza said, ''and that's typical of two-thirds of the states.
    [b] If we do not insist on Voter ID, how can we stop illegals from voting?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Dianne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,858
    I've never been able to figure out the electoral college, other than the fact I feel as though my vote never counts in the overall scheme of things.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    771
    The electorial college is needed for the small states to have a say in the presidential election.States like new york or california would have more say and influence in more ways than you can image than 20 small states combined.If you want a combination of new york,new jersey,ohio,california,michigan,texas and florida and maybe 3 other states to decide for the rest of the country that live in 40 states combined.If you think the middle man has little power now,let them change it to popular vote and have none.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    624
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne
    I've never been able to figure out the electoral college, other than the fact I feel as though my vote never counts in the overall scheme of things.
    One of the biggest problems with the electoral vote system is the "winner take all" policy the RNC follows in most states that awards 100% of a states electoral vote to a winning candidate rather than awarding them proportionately. Thus, if McCain wins 33% of a state's votes and his 2 opponents each win 32% of the vote, McCain still wins 100% of the state's electoral vote.
    [b] If we do not insist on Voter ID, how can we stop illegals from voting?

  5. #5
    jazzloversinc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    442

    delegates.

    The electoral college is made up of superdelegates and delegates. Sooo...whoever gets the most delegates..makes up the Electoral College..and that is also a caucus system.

  6. #6
    jazzloversinc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    442

    Straw Polls...

    The primaries and general elections are only straw polls..they don't mean a whole lot. Delegates who become the Electoral college are the ones who actually decide who the president will be. I consider this fair. I dont' want to see it changed. Why? Because as you can all see...the public is brain dead...they dont' know issues..they don't know the process. Now, the popular vote IS the deciding factor on the house and senate..which is really more powerful anyway. The legislative branch has the most power of the 3 branches..although you wouldn't know it these days by the legislating from the bench that the SCOTUS is doing..which is wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •